If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: Did you vote for evil oil or protecting the caribou?

So your plan is to keep the status quo with Americans paying more and more for oil coming from non-domestic sources instead of using what we have here while these alternate energy sources are developed.

Since the price I pay is irrelevant to its source why does the source matter?

Thanks for signing. Newt is one of the best minds in Washington. This proves that people are listening and fed up with business as usual. If anyone else agrees, would appreciate your looking at this petition. :)

It's gone up 40,000 signatures since last night. It's getting very close to that million mark. It should make those politicians sit up and take notice.

Update, it's just gone over the million mark, 1,000,222 when I last checked. Let's go for that next million. :D

Excellent thread, well done SLW for posting it.

The poll itself is such a no brainer.

We need to drill, drill, drill to buy ourselves enough time to develop scalabliity for the new solutions already available.

Anyone who really wants blackouts, high gas prices and dependencies on hostile regimes, they can vote against it.

We need to drill, drill, drill to buy ourselves enough time to develop scalabliity for the new solutions already available.

Anyone who really wants blackouts, high gas prices and dependencies on hostile regimes, they can vote against it.

Me, I'm in love with the petroleum age, and I don't want it to end.

Thanks. The folks who want the blackouts, higher gas prices and dependencies on the Middle East probably were Jimmy Carter supporters. Even in more liberal California, 59% of the people are in favor of more offshore drilling off the California coast.

Thanks. The folks who want the blackouts, higher gas prices and dependencies on the Middle East probably were Jimmy Carter supporters. Even in more liberal California, 59% of the people are in favor of more offshore drilling off the California coast.

Blackouts! 1.6% of electrical generation is dependent on petroleum. Do you honestly think this amount of dependency will lead to blackouts? Are you nuts? And why is it no one will address the issue that more drilling will not lead to lower prices. The US does not dictate demand anymore and price is set by the world, not US, market.

Blackouts! 1.6% of electrical generation is dependent on petroleum. Do you honestly think this amount of dependency will lead to blackouts? Are you nuts? And why is it no one will address the issue that more drilling will not lead to lower prices. The US does not dictate demand anymore and price is set by the world, not US, market.

Because increasing supply WILL lead to lower prices. WHy would it not Peter??

In Texas we have a surplus of oil and yet we pay only a few penny's below national average. Why?

Because OPEC still calls the shots on the price of crude. If we have more control of it, there's a better chance of the price going down. If there is a plentiful supply, the law of supply and demand should take hold.

Remember Bubba Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid". Newt's "Drill here, drill now, pay less" is beautiful in its message. It succinctly appeals to folks from all walks of life.

Because OPEC still calls the shots on the price of crude. If we have more control of it, there's a better chance of the price going down. If there is a plentiful supply, the law of supply and demand should take hold.

Remember Bubba Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid". Newt's "Drill here, drill now, pay less" is beautiful in its message. It succinctly appeals to folks from all walks of life.

It's sort of catchy, like that eternal "CHANGE, CHANGE, HOPE" thingy.

It appeals to simpletons, morons, and those who refuse to think for themselves. To drive down the price of oil supply would have to exceed demand. This means that you donít replace OPEC oil but add to it. The 64 million dollar question is why would the oil giants spend billions to create a glut in one area while there is supply scarcity in another area? Why on earth would you work to sell oil for a lower price in one area when you can do nothing and sell it for a higher price in another?

It appeals to simpletons, morons, and those who refuse to think for themselves. To drive down the price of oil supply would have to exceed demand. This means that you donít replace OPEC oil but add to it. The 64 million dollar question is why would the oil giants spend billions to create a glut in one area while there is supply scarcity in another area? Why on earth would you work to sell oil for a lower price in one area when you can do nothing and sell it for a higher price in another?

You got the ďstupidĒ part right but little elseÖ

Won't dignify this with further comment. No use for the snotty comments.

Demand is world wide and price set by the international market. What is the purpose of attempting to gain oil independence when the price we pay is unchanged? What exactly are you attempting to achieve and at what price?

Is this a trick question or what?

You failed to mention the OTHER element that determines the "price set by the international market": SUPPLY.

When you increase supply, that usually decreases the price. Also, since the price of a barrel of oil nowadays is influenced more by speculators than by the actual supply, knowing that tomorrow's oil is not as subject to the whims of a limited number of Middle Eastern whackos should help to drop the price on the commodities market. Increasing our capability to supply our own needs will not only help achieve that energy independence, but it WILL reduce what we pay per barrel.